Daul et al v. PPM Energy, Inc.

Filing 111

OPINION AND ORDER - Defendant's motion 93 for partial summary judgment on the AIP-based claims is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion for additional discovery is DENIED. Signed on 4/15/10 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N P O R T L A N D DIVISION

T Y D A U L a n d R A I M U N D GRUBE, Plaintiffs,

Case N o . : 0 8 - C V - 5 2 4 - A C OPINION A N D O R D E R

v.
P P M E N E R G Y , I N C . , n o w k n o w n as IBERDROLA R E N E WABLES, INC., and the S E V E R A N C E E N H A N C E M E N T S F O R K E Y P P M E M P L O Y E E S PLAN, Defendants.

A C O S T A , M a g i s t r a t e Judge:

Opinion
Plaintiffs T y D a u l a n d R a i m u n d G m b e ( c o l l e c t i v e l y " P l a i n t i f f s " ) filed t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t their f o r m e r e m p l o y e r P P M E n e r g y , I n c . , n o w k n o w n as I b e r d r o l a R e n e w a b l e s , I n c . , ( " P P M " ) a n d t h e

P A G E I - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

Change in Control Severance E n h a n c e m e n t s for Key P P M Employees P l a n (the " P l a n " ) (collectively " D e f e n d a n t s " ) i n state court. P l a i n t i f f s allege t h a t P P M b r e a c h e d t h e S p e c i a l S e v e r a n c e P r o t e c t i o n A g r e e m e n t (the " A g r e e m e n t " ) entered into by the parties o n April 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , b y n o t paying t h e m s e v e r a n c e pay and b e n e f i t s t h e y w e r e a l l e g e d l y e n t i t l e d t o u n d e r t h e A g r e e m e n t w h e n t h e y resigned. Defendants removed the a c t i o n to this court o n M a y 1, 2008, o n the basis t h a t the A g r e e m e n t is an e m p l o y e e b e n e f i t p l a n u n d e r t h e federal E m p l o y m e n t R e t i r e m e n t I n c o m e S e c u r i t y A c t (29 U . S . C .

§§ 100 I e t seq. (2006) ("ERISA"), a n d thus, t h a t federal l a w preempts Plaintiffs' breach o f contract
claim. P r e v i o u s l y , t h i s c o u r t a d d r e s s e d the p a r t i e s ' c r o s s - m o t i o n s for p a r t i a l s u m m a t y j u d g m e n t o n the i s s u e o f w h e t h e r there w a s a "Material Alteration i n C o m p e n s a t i o n " due to changes i n the V a l u e A p p r e c i a t i o n R i g h t s P l a n ( " V A R P l a n " ) . I n i t s O p i n i o n a n d O r d e r d a t e d D e c e m b e r 14, 2 0 0 9 ( t h e " O p i n i o n " ) , this c o u r t f o u n d that: " P l a i n t i f f s ' v o l u n t a r y e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r rights u n d e r t h e V A R P l a n d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a Material Alteration i n Compensation"; " n o Material Alteration i n C o m p e n s a t i o n occurred b e c a u s e the R V A R Plan! did n o t eliminate P l a i n t i f f s ' opp011unity t o earn c o m p a r a b l e value f o r t h e g r o w t h o f P P M " ; a n d " t h e r e was no Material Alteration i n Compensation d u e t o r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f p a y c o m p o n e n t s . " ( O p i n i o n a t 18, 2 2 a n d 2 4 . ) C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s c o u r t granted D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n for pat1ial s u m m a t y j u d g m e n t a n d d i s m i s s e d P l a i n t i f f s ' claims based o n t h e V A R Plan. Presently before the court is D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n for pat1ial s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n P l a i n t i f f s ' claims b a s e d o n a Material Alteration i n Compensation under P P M ' s A n n u a l Incentive P l a n ("AlP").

1 T h e R V A R P l a n i s i d e n t i f i e d as t h e R e p l a c e m e n t V a l u e A p p r e c i a t i o n P l a n o f f e r e d t o a l l V A R P l a n p a r t i c i p a n t s i n S e p t e m b e r 2007. ( O p i n i o n a t 6.)

P A G E 2 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

Defendants contend that the finding o f this c o u r t t h a t Plaintiffs' earning opportunities were n o t adversely impacted as set f01th i n the Opinion requires the dismissal o f Plaintiffs ' AlP-based claims. A l t e m a t i v e l y , D e f e n d a n t s argue t h a t P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l ' s s t a t e m e n t at a status conference t h a t t h e Opinion disposed o f t h e i r AlP-based claims is a j u d i c i a l admission and bars the continued litigation o f t h e s e c l a i m s . P l a i n t i f f s o p p o s e t h e m o t i o n for p a r t i a l s u m m m y j u d g m e n t o n t h e m e r i t s a n d , a l t e m a t i v e l y , a s k t h a t a r u l i n g o n the m o t i o n b e d e l a y e d p e n d i n g a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y p u r s u a n t t o

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f).
T h e c o u r t finds t h a t P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l ' s a l l e g e d oral s t a t e m e n t a t a n o m e p o r t e d s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e i s n o t a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n and t h a t , i n a n y e v e n t , a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s w i t h r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r t h e s t a t e m e n t w a s m a d e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the c o u r t s t a n d s b y i t s p r i o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n s t h a t the t e r m Material Alteration i n C o m p e n s a t i o n requires a purely monetmy, ' d o l l a r s a n d c e n t s ' analysis o f w h e t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n r e m a i n e d c o m p a r a b l e , t h a t P l a i n t i f f s ' t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n , a s m e a s u r e d i n m o n e t m y t e r m s , a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d , a n d t h a t t h e r e w a s no M a t e r i a l Alteration i n Compensation due to restlUcturing o f pay components. Based o n these findings, D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n P l a i n t i f f s ' A l P - b a s e d c l a i m s i s g r a n t e d a n d P l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t f o r a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e l y is denied. Background Plaintiffs are former high-level employees o f PPM. (Daul Dec!. ~ 2; Grube Dec!. ~2.? P P M was i n t h e renewable energy business, w i t h w i n d energy as its primmy focus. (Daul Dec!. ~ 3.) Daul w a s v i c e - p r e s i d e n t o f b u s i n e s s d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e W i n d G r o u p , a n d Grube w a s m a n a g i n g d i r e c t o r

2Grube and Daul have submitted v h t u a l l y identical materials with their declarations. Unless o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e d , c i t a t i o n will o n l y be t o t h e e x h i b i t s i n c l u d e d w i t h D a u l ' s d e c l a r a t i o n .

P A G E 3 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

of b u s i n e s s d e v e l o p m e n t f o r the s a m e group. ( D a u l Dec!. 'il2; Grube Dec!. 'il2.) I n late A p r i l 2 0 0 7 , S c o t t i s h P o w e r ("Scottish Power"), t h e p a r e n t corporation o f P P M , w a s purchased b y I b e r d r o l a ( " I b e r d r o l a " ) . ( D a u l D e c ! . 'il3; G r u b e D e c ! . ' i l 3 . ) D u r i n g t h e t r a n s i t i o n , P P M o f f e r e d the A g r e e m e n t t o a " v e r y f e w s e l e c t g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s , " i n o r d e r to " e l i m i n a t e c o n c e r n s " t h e y m a y have h a d a b o u t a n y n e g a t i v e financial i m p a c t due t o a n a d v e r s e c h a n g e i n t h e i r r o l e o r c o m p e n s a t i o n s t r u c t u r e f o r o n e year following t h e p u r c h a s e o f S c o t t i s h Power. (Daul Dec!. Ex. 1 a t 1.) O n April 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , b o t h D a u l and Grube voluntarily a c c e p t e d t h e A g r e e m e n t . ( D a u l D e c ! . ' i l 4 , G r u b e Dec!. ' i l 4 . )

1. T h e A g r e e m e n t
T h e A g r e e m e n t w a s " i n l i e u of, n o t i n addition to," t h e existing P P M Severance P l a n (the " E x i s t i n g P l a n " ) f o r t h e e m p l o y e e s w h o a c c e p t e d t h e n e w p l a n . ( D a u l Dec!. E x . 1 a t 3.) T h e t e l m s o f t h e A g r e e m e n t e x p i r e d o n e y e a r a f t e r c l o s i n g o f t h e s a l e o f S c o t t i s h P o w e r . ( O p i n i o n a t 3.) U n d e r the t e r m s o f the Agreement, Plaintiffs were entitled to severance b e n e f i t s i f they were i n v o l v e d i n e i t h e r : ( 1 ) a Q u a l i f y i n g E m p l o y e r - I n i t i a t e d T e l m i n a t i o n w i t h i n 12 m o n t h s f o l l o w i n g a C h a n g e i n Control; o r (2) a Qualifying E m p l o y e e - m i t i a t e d Resignation t h a t occurs n o l a t e r t h a n the 13th m o n t h f o l l o w i n g t h e C h a n g e i n C o n t r o V ( D a u l Dec!. E x . 1 a t 3 . ) A Q u a l i f y i n g E m p l o y e e - I n i t i a t e d R e s i g n a t i o n occurs w h e n t h e e m p l o y e e voluntarily resigns due to a " C o n s t r u c t i v e D i s m i s s a l " or a " M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n . " ( D a u l Dec!. E x . 1 a t 3.) A " C o n s t r u c t i v e D i s m i s s a l " o c c u r s w h e n , " c o n s i d e r i n g the e m p l o y e e ' s j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a n d s c o p e o f authority i n t h e aggregate, t h e e m p l o y e e ' s r o l e h a s u n i l a t e r a l l y c h a n g e d and h a s b e e n

3Iberdrola's p u r c h a s e o f S c o t t i s h P o w e r w a s a C h a n g e i n C o n t r o l for p u r p o s e s o f t h e Agreement.

P A G E 4 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

materially diminished i n a manner which effectively removes the employee from a position substantially comparable to the one the employee held immediately prior [to] the Change i n Control." (Daul Decl. Ex. 1 at 3.) A "Material Alteration i n Compensation" is defined in section 2(b) o f the Agreement as: any o f the following, provided that the change is not related to a change i n business perfonnance or Participant's perfolmance or a restructuring o f Participant's pay components so that the Patiicipant' s total direct compensation (base salary, bonus, and long-telm incentive) is comparable: (1) The Patiicipant's base pay is reduced by any amount, regardless o f whether the reduction is due to business or Patiicipant's perfOlmance or a restructming o f pay components as set fOlih i n 2(b) above; (2) The Participant's earnings opportunity is adversely impacted by a change in the a n n u a l incentive s t r u c t m e , p r a c t i c e s , o r administrative g u i d e l i n e s , o t h e r t h a n i n t h e ordinary course o r already planned prior to the transaction, that results in: (a) a limit or cap o n Patiicipant's bonus opportunity (b) a reduction in the Participant's opportunity to e a m bonuses consistent with the Annual Incentive Plan dated F Y 2006-2007 ("Annual Incentive Plan") and the Guidelines for A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the A n n u a l Incentive P l a n F Y 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7 , w h i c h reflect the administrative practices i n effect immediately prior to the Change in Control. For this pmpose, a qualifying change shall include, but not be limited to, a change from the CUlTent structme o f recognizing business value and profit contribution i n b o n u s a l l o c a t i o n s , a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e from t h e h i s t o r i c a l l e v e l s o f P a r t i c i p a n t a w a r d s considering comparable business value and profit contributions and roles, or a material reduction i n the propoliion o f profit and value sharing allocable to incentive funding. (3) The Participant's earnings opportunity is adversely impacted by a material change i n the scope o f the Participant's responsibilities which limits the employee's contributions to key measures linked to reward oppOliunity in the Annual Incentive Plan. (4) The Participant's earnings opportunity is adversely impacted by a change in the long-term incentive structme or administrative practices as described in the Value Appreciation Rights ( VAR) Plan that results in: (a) the elimination o f the Participant's oppOlwnity to earn comparable value P A G E 5 - OPINION A N D O R D E R {SIB}

appreciation for the growth o f PPM; ( b ) m a t e r i a l c h a n g e s t o · v a l u a t i o n m e t h o d o l o g y or t h e c o r p o r a t e s t r u c t u r e u s e d f o r v a l u a t i o n p u r p o s e s , i f any s u c h c h a n g e s h a s a n a d v e r s e i m p a c t t o t h e v a l u a t i o n o f P P M f o r l o n g - t e l m i n c e n t i v e purposes. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t a P a l t i c i p a n t voluntarily accepts a position t h a t r e s u l t s i n a n y o f t h e a b o v e , t h i s w o u l d n o t q u a l i f y a s a " M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n " or a "Constructive Dismissal. ["] (Daul Decl. Ex. 1 at 3-4.) I n the event o f any Employee-Initiated Resignation, t h e Agreement requires the employee to give t h e Company sixty-days' notice o f their intent to resign. (Daul Decl. Ex. 1 at 4.) I f the C o m p a n y cures the Constructive Dismissal o r Material A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n w i t h i n 2 0 business days o f receiving notice o f the e m p l o y e e ' s intent to resign, the employee is not eligible for severance p a y o r benefits u n d e r the Agreement. (Daul Decl. Ex. 1 at 4-5.) U n d e r the A g r e e m e n t , s e v e r a n c e p a y w i l l b e b a s e d u p o n t h e g r e a t e r o f s e v e r a n c e p a y a l l o w e d u n d e r t h e E x i s t i n g P l a n or t h e e m p l o y e e ' s b a s e p a y a n d t a r g e t b o n u s f o r t w e l v e m o n t h s . ( D a u l D e c l . Ex. 1 a t 5.) The Agreement provides for the following severance benefits: (1) Company-subsidized health benefits for a period o f six (6) months following the m o n t h i n w h i c h t h e P a r t i c i p a n t t e r m i n a t e s employment. T h e s u b s i d y w i l l b e t h e s a m e as the subsidy levels available to active employees at that time. ( 2 ) E x e c u t i v e l e v e l o u t p l a c e m e n t a s s i s t a n c e for a p e r i o d o f t w e l v e ( 1 2 ) m o n t h s following t e l m i n a t i o n from employment. ( 3 ) A p r o r a t e d annual i n c e n t i v e a w a r d for t h e f i n a l p e r f o l m a n c e p e r i o d i n w h i c h t h e P a l t i c i p a n t t e l m i n a t e s employment. T h i s p r o r a t e d award w i l l b e d e t e l m i n e d o n a discretionary basis b y the Company, o n the same basis as under the administrative g u i d e l i n e s a n d p r a c t i c e s f o r the A n n u a l I n c e n t i v e P l a n . (4) A c c e l e r a t e d v e s t i n g o f a n y u n v e s t e d V a l u e A p p r e c i a t i o n R i g h t s ( V ARs). A l l v e s t e d V A R s w i l l be p a i d o u t t o t h e P a r t i c i p a n t b a s e d o n t h e n e x t v a l u a t i o n f o l l o w i n g t h e p m t i c i p a n t ' s t e l m i n a t i o n from employment.

P A G E 6 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

(Daul Dec!. Ex. I at 5.) II. Long-Term Incentive P l a n
I n 2 0 0 7 , P P M e l i m i n a t e d t h e V A R Plan, i t s t h e n e x i s t i n g l o n g - t e r m i n c e n t i v e p l a n , a n d

r e p l a c e d i t w i t h t h e R V A R Plan. ( O p i n i o n a t 5-6.) B o t h p l a n s p r o v i d e d i n c e n t i v e s t o e m p l o y e e s t o achieve long-term performance results by granting value appreciation rights, w h i c h were analogous t o c o m p a n y s t o c k options. ( O p i n i o n a t 5-7.) I n i t s p r i o r Opinion, t h i s C O U t t found t h a t P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t e x p e r i e n c e a M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 2 ( b ) ( 4) a s a r e s u l t o f t h e c h a n g e s t o t h e V A R P l a n a n d d i s m i s s e d P l a i n t i f f s c l a i m s b a s e d o n the V A R P l a n . III. Annual Incentive P l a n F o r fiscal year 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7 , 4 P P M h a d a n A l P i n p l a c e , s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e guidelines approved o n November 3, 2006 ("Guidelines"), and w a s funded by approximately 15% o f P P M ' s Earnings Before Interest and T a x e s ("EBIT"). (Willey Dec!. Ex. I at 1.) T h e majority o f P P M ' s employees, i n c l u d i n g Plaintiffs, were e n t i t l e d to participate i n t h e A l P a n d to r e c e i v e distributions fi'om the funded poo!. (Willey Dec!. Ex. I at 1.) Awards were made to participants o n a d i s c r e t i o n a r y basis, b a s e d u p o n v a r i o u s factors i n c l u d i n g a p a r t i c i p a n t ' s e l i g i b l e e a r n i n g s , b u s i n e s s u n i t p e r f o r m a n c e , N e t P r e s e n t V a l u e ( " N P V " ) generation, a n d individual/team p e r f o n n a n c e a g a i n s t g o a l s . ( W i l l e y Dec!. E x . I a t 3 . ) N P V a w a r d s w e r e g e n e r a l l y s p r e a d o u t o v e r a t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d , w i t h t h e first p a y m e n t t y p i c a l l y m a d e i n J u n e f o l l o w i n g t h e e n d o f t h e f i s c a l y e a r f o r w h i c h the award w a s earned. (Willey Dec!. Ex. 1 at 7.) I f an employee voluntarily resigned before payment w a s made, all remaining defe11'ed payments were forfeited. (Willey Dec!. Ex. 1 a t 2 . ) T h e

' P P M ' s fiscal year r a n from April I through March 31. P A G E 7 - OPINION A N D O R D E R {SIB}

AlP continued into fiscal year 2008-2009 and w a s i n effect when Plaintiffs gave notice o f a QualifYing Employee-Initiated Resignation o n N o v e m b e r 15, 2007. ( H u d g e n s ' Dec!. Ex. 10 a t 2-3; Hudgens Supp. Dec!. ~ 4.) N o changes were made to the A l P o r the Guidelines and n o n e w groups, such as Iberdrola employees, were p l a c e d u n d e r the A l P through April 1, 2009. (Hudgens Dec!. Ex. 10 a t 2-3, Hudgens Supp. Decl.
~~

4-5.)

IV. Employee-Initiated Resignation Plaintiffs advised P P M o f t h e i r intent t o invoke Qualified Employee-Initiated Resignations o n N o v e m b e r 15, 2007. (Daul Dec!.
~

18, Ex. 2; Grube Dec!.

~

1 8 . ) P l a i n t i f f s infOlmed P P M t h a t

t h e y f e l t t h e c h a n g e s t o t h e V A R P l a n and A l P a d v e r s e l y i m p a c t e d t h e i r e a r n i n g and b o n u s o p p o r t u n i t i e s , a n d t h e r e f o r e , q u a l i f i e d as a M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r t h e t e l m s o f the Agreement. (Daul Dec!. Ex. 2 at 2.) Plaintiffs also claimed that t h e i r j o b responsibilities and s c o p e o f w o r k w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y c h a n g e d as a r e s u l t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g , i m p a c t i n g t h e i r ability to contribute to key measures linked to reward oppOltunity u n d e r the AlP. (Daul Dec!. Ex. 2 a t 2-3.) O n December 5, 2007, Linda Wah, P P M ' s Vice President o f H u m a n Resources, responded to P l a i n t i f f s b y e m a i l a n d indicated that s h e disagreed w i t h t h e i r a s s e l t i o n s t h a t a C o n s t r u c t i v e D i s m i s s a l o r M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n h a d o c c u r r e d a n d m a d e t h e m e l i g i b l e for severance benefits under the Agreement. (Hudgens Decl. Ex. 10 at 1 , 4 . ) W a h addressed e a c h o f the P l a i n t i f f s ' claims and explained why she did not agree w i t h them. (Hudgens Dec!. Ex. 10 a t 1-6.) The p a t t i e s c o u l d n o t resolve t h e i r disagreement, a n d P l a i n t i f f s ' resignations b e c a m e effective o n January 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 . (Opinion at 10.) P P M does not recognize Plaintiffs' resignations as QualifYing

STerry Hudgens w a s CEO and President o f P P M through N o v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 8 . P A G E 8 - OPINION A N D O R D E R {SIB}

Employee-Initiated Resignations under the terms o f the Agreement and i t h a s refused t o pay P l a i n t i f f s t h e s e v e r a n c e p a y a n d benefits p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h e Agreement. V. Plaintiffs' Total D i r e c t Compensation According to the Agreement, Plaintiffs' total direct compensation w a s made u p o f b a s e pay, bonus, and 10ng-tetID incentives. (Daul Dec!. Ex. I at 3.)

A. D a u l ' s Total Direct Compensation
I . Before t h e Change i n Control F r o m April 26, 2006, to April 25, 2007, D a u l ' s earnings from his base salmy were $196,289. (Willey Dec!. ~ 3, Ex. 2.) The estimated overall value o f D a u l ' s V A R units for t h e same p e r i o d was $ 4 4 8 , 9 6 0 , b a s e d u p o n a 2 0 % c o m p o u n d e d a n n u a l g r o w t h rate ( " C A G R " ) a n d a n a s s u m p t i o n t h a t h e w o u l d n o t exercise his V A R units until the latest date possible. (Willey Dec!.
~

12, Ex. 2.) I n June

2 0 0 7 , D a u l r e c e i v e d a n N P V a w a r d u n d e r the A l P i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ I , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , o f w h i c h $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 w a s p a i d to him. ( W i l l e y Dec!.
~

7, E x . 2 . ) T h e r e m a i n i n g d e f e r r e d p a y m e n t o f $ 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 w a s

scheduled to be paid to h i m in t w o equal annual installments, beginning June 2008. (Willey Dec!.
~

7 . ) A c c o r d i n g l y , D a u l ' s t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n from A p r i l 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , t o A p r i l 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , w a s

$ 1 , 8 4 5 , 2 4 9 . ( W i l l e y Dec!. E x . 2 . ) 2. After t h e Change i n Control F r o m April 26, 2007 to April 25, 2008, D a u l ' s em'nings from his base salary w o u l d have been $221,450 i f h e had n o t resigned i n January 2008. (Willey Dec!.
~

3, Ex. 2.) A s o f October I ,

2 0 0 7 , D a u l ' s V A R u n i t s h a d a f l o o r value o f $ I , 0 1 4 , 3 1 1 , b a s e d u p o n t h e m i n i m u m 2 0 % C A G R a n d the mandatOlY exercise dates set forth in the R VA R Plan. (Willey Dec!. ~ 14, Ex. 2.) Because Daul resigned before the e n d o f the 2007-2008 fiscal year, no N P V award was made to h i m in 2008.

P A G E 9 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

(Willey Dec!. ~ 8.) However, i f h e h a d not resigned, a reasonable estimate o f D a u l ' s N P V award for J u n e 2 0 0 8 , u s i n g c r i t e r i a a n d f a c t o r s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e u s e d i n p r i o r years, w o u l d h a v e b e e n $1,23 5,4 70. (Willey Dec!. ~ 8, Ex. 2.) Accordingly, D a u l ' s total compensation from Apri126, 2007, to April 25, 2008, had he n o t resigned in J a n u m y 2 0 0 8 , would have b e e n $2,471,231. (Willey Dec!. Ex. 2.)

B. Grube's Total Direct Compensation
1. Before the Change in Control F r o m A p r i l 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , t o A p r i l 25, 2 0 0 7 , G r u b e ' s e a r n i n g s f r o m h i s b a s e s a l a r y w e r e $175,350. (Willey Dec!.
~

4, Ex. 3.) The estimated overall value o f G r u b e ' s V A R units for the

s a m e p e r i o d w a s $ 4 3 4 , 3 9 0 , b a s e d u p o n a 2 0 % C A G R a n d a n a s s u m p t i o n t h a t he w o u l d n o t e x e r c i s e h i s V A R units until the latest date possible. (Willey Dec!.
~

16, Ex. 3.) I n June 2007, GlUbe

r e c e i v e d a n N P V a w a r d u n d e r the A l P i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 , o f w h i c h $ 2 0 8 , 3 3 3 w a s p a i d t o him. (Willey Dec!. ~ 9, Ex. 3.) T h e remaining deferred payment o f $ 4 1 6 , 6 6 7 w a s scheduled to be paid to h i m in two equal annual installments, beginning June 2008. (Willey Dec!. ~ 9.) Accordingly, G r u b e ' s total compensation from Apri126, 2006, to April 25, 2007, w a s $1,234,740. (Willey Dec!. Ex. 3 . ) 2. After the Change i n Control F r o m A p r i l 26, 2 0 0 7 t o A p r i 1 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , G r u b e ' s e a r n i n g s f r o m h i s b a s e s a l a r y w o u l d h a v e been $221,450 i f he had n o t resigned in Janumy 2008. (Willey Dec!. ~ 4, Ex. 3.) A s o f October 1, 2 0 0 7 , G r u b e ' s V A R u n i t s had a f l o o r v a l u e o f $ 9 9 3 , 0 5 9 , b a s e d u p o n t h e m i n i m u m 2 0 % C A G R a n d the mandatory exercise dates s e t forth i n the R V A R Plan. (Willey Dec!. ~ 17, Ex. 3.) Because Grube resigned before the e n d o f the 2007-2008 fiscal yem', no N P V award w a s made t o h i m i n 2008.

P A G E 10 - OPINION AND O R D E R

{SIB}

(Willey Dec!. ~ 10.) However, i f h e h a d n o t resigned, a reasonable estimate o f G r u b e ' s N P V award for June 2008, using criteria and factors consistent w i t h those used i n p r i o r years, would have been $665,570. (Willey Dec!.
~

10, Ex. 3.) Accordingly, G r u b e ' s total compensation from April 26,

2007, to April 25, 2008, h a d he not resigned in J a n u m y 2 0 0 8 , would have been $1,845,377. (Willey Dec!. Ex. 3.) VI. Opinion In the Opinion, the court addressed the parties' arguments based o n the elimination o f the VA R Plan. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to invoke Qualified Employee-Initiated R e s i g n a t i o n s b e c a u s e P P M ' s e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e V A R P l a n , a n d f a i l u r e to replace i t w i t h a n o t h e r l o n g - t e r m i n c e n t i v e p l a n , w a s a n a d v e r s e c h a n g e to t h e i r e a r n i n g s o p p o r t u n i t y , a n d thus, c o n s t i t u t e d a Material Alteration i n Compensation as defined by the Agreement. Defendants assetied, i n pmi, t h a t P l a i n t i f f s did n o t e x p e r i e n c e a M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n b e c a u s e t h e i r t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d a n d , t h e r e f o r e , w e r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o the s p e c i a l s e v e r a n c e b e n e f i t s p r o v i d e d for i n t h e A g r e e m e n t . O n t h i s i s s u e , t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t : The Agreement defines a Material Alteration i n Compensation as " a n y o f the following, provided that the change is not related t o a . . . restmcturing o f Participant's pay components so that the Participant's total direct compensation (base salmy, bonus, aIld long-term incentive) is comparable[.]" (Daul Dec!. Ex. 1 a t 3.) I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e above l a n g u a g e e x p r e s s l y c a r v e s o u t a n e x c e p t i o n a l l o w i n g f o r restructuring o f pay components, so long as total direct compensation remains comparable. The cOUli finds that this language requires purely monetmy, "dollars a n d c e n t s " analysis o f w h e t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n r e m a i n e d c o m p a r a b l e , r a t h e r than a n a l y s i s o f w h e t h e r the t h r e e p a y c o m p o n e n t s r e m a i n e d c o m p a r a b l e . A s d i s c u s s e d e x t e n s i v e l y a b o v e , t h e a d o p t i o n o f the R V A R P l a n h a d a d i r e c t e f f e c t o n t h e l o n g t e r m i n c e n t i v e c o m p o n e n t o f P l a i n t i f f s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n structure. T h e c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n is whether despite this change, Plaintiffs' total compensation, as measured i n monetary tetIDS, actually increased. Here, despite P P M ' s failure to immediately implement a n e w 10ng-tetID

P A G E 11 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

incentive plan, P l a i n t i f f s ' total c o m p e n s a t i o n increased. I f D a u l h a d n o t resigned, his total d i r e c t c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r t h e one-year p e r i o d following t h e p u r c h a s e o f S c o t t i s h P o w e r w o u l d h a v e b e e n $ 2 , 4 7 1 , 2 3 1 , w h i c h i s $ 6 2 5 , 9 8 2 m o r e t h a n i t w a s d u r i n g the one-year p e r i o d p r i o r to the purchase. (Willey Dec!. Ex. 2.) Similarly, h a d Grube n o t resigned, his total c o m p e n s a t i o n would h a v e b e e n $1,845,377, w h i c h is $610,637 more than it w a s the previous year. (Id. Ex. 3.) Accordingly, there was no Material Alteration i n C o m p e n s a t i o n d u e to restructuring o f p a y components. ( O p i n i o n at 23-24.)

Standards
S u m m m y j u d g m e n t is appropriate only w h e n the record shows t h a t " t h e r e is no genuine issue as to a n y material fact a n d t h a t the m o v i n g p a r t y is entitled to j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " FED.

R. CIY. P. 56©). A dispute is genuine i f " t h e evidence is s u c h that a reasonable jUly c o u l d r e t u r n a
verdict for the non-moving party." A n d e r s o n v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 4 7 7 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material if, u n d e r the substantive l a w o f the case, resolution o f the factual dispute c o u l d affect t h e o u t c o m e o f the case. Id.

Discussion

I. Judicial A d m i s s i o n
D e f e n d a n t s assert that P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l a d m i t t e d at during a telephonic s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e i n i t i a t e d b y t h e C 0 1 u i t h a t t h e O p i n i o n a d d r e s s i n g t h e P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s b a s e d o n t h e V A R P l a n also d i s p o s e d o f all o f P l a i n t i f f s ' A l P - b a s e d c l a i m s . D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h i s i s a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n t h a t b a r s P l a i n t i f f s from p u r s u i n g t h e i r c l a i m s u n d e r s e c t i o n s 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( b ) a n d 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) o f t h e Agreement, w h i c h are b a s e d o n the AlP. Defendants rely o n United States v. C r m l j o r d , 3 7 2 F . 3 d 1048 ( 9 t h Cit'. 2004), i n support o f this argument. In C r a w f o r d , t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s b o u n d b y t h e c l e a r a n d e x p r e s s concessions made by defense counsel i n b o t h the appellate briefs a n d at oral argument. Id. at 1055.

P A G E 12 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

However, Am. Title Ins. Co. v. L a c e l a w Corp., 861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988), the precedent expressly relied on by the Ninth Circuit in Crmllord, w a s limited to statements made in briefs and gave the district cOUlt the discretion to treat such statements as binding judicial admissions. The L a c e l a w court recognized the well-established rule that under federal law, "stipulations and admissions in the pleadings are generally binding o n the parties and the Court," b u t then noted that the alleged admissions currently before it were contained in a brief, not a pleading. Lacelaw, 861 F.2d a t 226 (citation omitted). The court acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit had yet to decide "whether statements made in briefs or other memoranda constitute judicial admissions" and adopted the holding o f the Tenth Circuit that statements contained i n a p a t t y ' s trial b r i e f " m a y be considered admissions o f the party in the discretion o f the district court." Id. a t 227. The statement chat'acterized by Defendants as a judicial admission was a n oral statement made during a n informal status conference that was n o t repOlted. The statement was not contained i n a pleading or a brief. F o r this reason alone, the statement does n o t qualifY as a judicial admission. E v e n a s s u m i n g i t w a s a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n , P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l denies m a k i n g t h e statement. Counsel for Plaintiffs participating in the status conference believes that he stated he " w a s not sure whether there would be any issues remaining regarding the AIP.,,6 (Larson Dec!. ~ 3.) This raises a genuine i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l fact o n w h e t h e r P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l e v e n m a d e t h e j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n w h i c h p r e c l u d e s t h e g r a n t i n g o f s u m m a t y j u d g m e n t b a s e d o n t h e a d m i s s i o n . Finally, b e c a u s e t h e s t a t e m e n t was n o t contained i n a pleading, the court would have discretion to treat the statement as a judicial admission. In light o f the circumstances presently before, the court exercises its discretion in favor

6Notes taken during the status conference by the court and h i s s t a f f indicate that only the constructive dismiss/discharge claims and the issue o f future V A R ' s remained and support D e f e n d a n t s ' position. PAGE 13 - OPINION AND O R D E R {SIB}

of Plaintiffs a n d finds that the statement is n o t a j u d i c i a l admission. II. R e q u e s t for Additional Discovery Plaintiffs request an opportunity to conduct additional discovely under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f) o n the issue o f whether changes i n the A l P led to a r e d u c t i o n in their opportunity to earn bonuses c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7 AlP. R u l e 5 6 ( f ) provides: I f a p a r t y o p p o s i n g t h e m o t i o n s h o w s b y a f f i d a v i t t h a t , for s p e c i f i e d r e a s o n s , i t c a n n o t p r e s e n t facts essential to j u s t i f y its opposition, the court may:
( l ) d e n y t h e motion;

(2) o r d e r a c o n t i n u a n c e t o e n a b l e a f f i d a v i t s t o b e o b t a i n e d , depositions to be taken, o r other discovely to be undeliaken; o r (3) i s s u e any o t h e r j u s t order. T h e p a t i y seeking discovely to oppose the m o t i o n m u s t s h o w t h a t the additional discovery requested m a y actually make a difference i n the outcome o f t h e motion. lvfcCormick v. F u n d Am. Companies,

Inc., 26 F . 3 d 869, 885 (9th Cir. 1994). They m u s t "identify b y affidavit t h e specific facts t h a t further
d i s c o v e l y w o u l d reveal, and explain why t h o s e facts preclude summary j u d g m e n t . " Tatum v. City

a n d County o fSan Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006).
D e f e n d a n t s argue that P l a i n t i f f s h a v e failed to c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 56(f) i n two patiiculat·s: 1) the affidavits offered by Plaintiffs do not identify specific facts that w o u l d b e revealed through additional discovery; and 2) the affidavits offered by Plaintiffs do not e x p l a i n h o w the facts w o u l d preclude the granting o f s u m m a t y j u d g m e n t . I n his declaration in opposition t o D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t s t h a t P l a i n t i f f s r e q u e s t e d the p r o d u c t i o n o f documents which contained information n e c e s s a t y t o suppOli their allegations " t h a t P P M h a d p l a n n e d and w a s i m p l e m e n t i n g c h a n g e s t o t h e A l P t h a t a d v e r s e l y i m p a c t e d p l a i n t i f f s " a n d

P A G E 14 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

that " [d]espite the obvious relevance o f this information, defendants refused to produce any responsive documents."? (Larson Dec!. ,; 4.) These representations, which merely generally describe t h e t y p e s o f infOlmation s o u g h t ( d o c u m e n t s s u p p o r t i n g t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t P P M p l a n n e d a n implemented changes to t h e AlP) and do not reveal o r explain why that information would have p r e c l u d e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t . P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h the s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 5 6 ( f ) a n d a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e c o n t i n u a n c e t h e y request. E v e n i f t h e c o u r t w e r e t o l o o k t o o t h e r s o u r c e s f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d u n d e r t h e R u l e , i t i s n o t c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e d o c u m e n t s r e q u e s t e d w o u l d p r o v i d e t h e i n f o l m a t i o n desired. I n t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n p a p e r s , P l a i n t i f f s ' r e l y o n s t a t e m e n t s f r o m W a h a n d H u d g e n s m a d e a f t e r the A p r i l 2 0 0 7 acquisition o f Scottish P o w e r by l b e r d o l a that the incentive plan for lberdola employees was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e A l P a n d t h a t c h a n g e s w o u l d n e e d t o be m a d e t o a d d r e s s t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . The two options to be considered were merging all employees into one plan o r maintaining two s e p a r a t e plans, o n e f o r l b e r d o l a U S A e m p l o y e e s a n d o n e f o r P P M employees. P l a i n t i f f s also s p e c u l a t e t h a t t h e n e w i n c e n t i v e p l a n m a y h a v e c a p p e d t h e e m p l o y e e s a n n u a l bonuses. P l a i n t i f f s admit that as o f the effective date o f t h e i r termination o n January 15, 2008, no changes to t h e AlP h a d b e e n a n n o u n c e d . P l a i n t i f f s t h e n c o m p l a i n t h a t t h e y h a v e n o t h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y to p u r s u e d i s c o v e r y o n w h a t c h a n g e s w e r e e v e n t u a l l y a n n o u n c e d a n d a r g u e t h a t the r e a s o n a b l e e s t i m a t e o f the P l a i n t i f f s ' 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 A l P a w a r d s s u p p o r t s t h e i r a s s u m p t i o n t h a t c h a n g e s t o the A l P w e r e m a d e . A t o r a l a r g u m e n t , P l a i n t i f f s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e n e w e v i d e n c e t h e y s o u g h t w a s w h a t c h a n g e s , i f any, P P M

' P l a i n t i f f s d e c i d e d n o t to m o v e t o c o m p e l p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t s u p o n l e a r n i n g o f D e f e n d a n t s ' r e f u s a l t o p r o d u c e the d o c u m e n t s o n J a n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , b u t r a t h e r w a i t e d until filing their opposition to Defendants' motion for partial summary j u d g m e n t o n March 2, 2010, to request additional time to seek such documents. P A G E 15 - OPINION A N D ORDER {SIB}

made to the A l P o r the n u m b e r o f A l P participants, during the thirteen months following the Change i n Control. T h e record reveals that W a h advised the Plaintiffs in letters dated December 5, 2007, that the S c o t t i s h P o w e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n d e e d r e q u i r e d P P M t o k e e p t h e e x i s t i n g A l P p l a n i n p l a c e for a t l e a s t a year following the Change in Control. " A s a result, P P M extended the A l P ' s i n place for t h e F Y ended 3/31/2007 into t h e F Y ending 3/31/09, and there have b e e n no changes to the A l P o r its a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g u i d e l i n e s . " W a h also t o l d P l a i n t i f f s t h a t n o n e w g r o u p s h a d b e e n p l a c e d u n d e r t h e A l P . ( W i l l e y D e c l . Ex. 1 0 a t 2 . ) H u d g e n s a d m i t s that h e d i s c u s s e d t h e f a c t t h a t l b e r d o l a h a d a different incentive p l a n i n place for fiscal year 2006-2007, b u t denies telling Plaintiffs that P P M h a d decided to make any changes. (Hudgens Supp. Decl.
~

3 . ) H u d g e n s represents t h a t p r i o r t o t h e

effective date o f their resignation, he t o l d Plaintiffs that P P M w a s going t o keep the A l P in place for a t l e a s t a y e a r a n d t h a t n o l b e r d o l a U S A e m p l o y e e s w o u l d b e a d d e d as p a r t i c i p a n t s t o t h e A l P . P l a i n t i f f d o n o t d i s p u t e t h a t t h e y w e r e p r o v i d e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a n d , i n f a c t , a d m i t t h a t as o f t h e i r t e r m i n a t i o n date, n o c h a n g e s t o the A l P h a d b e e n a n n o u n c e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a t o r a l a r g u m e n t , D e f e n d a n t s ' counsel r e p r e s e n t e d that they h a d p r o d u c e d t h e entire administrative record, i n c l u d i n g all documents relied o n b y W a h i n responding to Plaintiffs request for benefits under the Agreement, w h i c h w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e the 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 A l P i n e f f e c t a s o f t h a t date. A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s c l e a r f r o m the r e c o r d t h a t a s o f J a n u m y 2 0 0 8 , P l a i n t i f f s k n e w t h a t t h e A l P h a d n o t b e e n c h a n g e d . H u d g e n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e A l P r e m a i n e d t h e s m n e f o r 2 0 0 8 - 2 0 0 9 f i s c a l y e a r as w e l l . Plaintiffs have n o t presented any evidence that this testimony is false. Plaintiffs speculation t h a t this s t a t e m e n t i s false b a s e d o n a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t s f r o m W a h a n d H u d g e n s t h a t c h a n g e s w o u l d b e m a d e t o t h e A l P , w h i c h t h e y a d m i t d i d n o t o c c u r as o f J a n u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d t h e d e c r e a s e i n t h e i r A l P

P A G E 16 - OPINION AND O R D E R

{SIB}

bonuses for 2007-2008 based o n the estimates o f Willey, w h i c h decrease c o u l d be attributable to factors o t h e r t h a n a c h a n g e i n t h e A l P , i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t to refute H u d g e n s ' s testimony. The court is n o t convinced that the specific facts sought by Plaintiffs ~ that P P M changed the A l P a f t e r the C h a n g e i n C o n t r o l a n d w h a t c h a n g e s w e r e m a d e - e x i s t . E v e n i f s u c h e v i d e n c e d o e s e x i s t , t h e a r g u m e n t s P l a i n t i f f s m a k e w i t h r e g a r d t o s u c h e v i d e n c e , as d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , w o u l d n o t compel denial o f s u m m a r y judgment. Plaintiffs request for additional discovery is denied. III. Material Alteration i n Compensation D u e to Changes in A l P Plaintiffs argue t h a t after the Change i n Control, there w a s a reduction i n the opportunity to e a m b o n u s e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7 A l P . P l a i n t i f f s p o i n t to t h e c h a n g e i n t h e structure o f recognizing b u s i n e s s v a l u e a n d p r o f i t contribution, r e s u l t i n g i n l o w e r E B I T awards, t h e d i l u t i o n o f t h e A l P b o n u s p o o l b y t h e a d d i t i o n o f l b e r d r o l a U S A p e r s o n n e l , a n d the a d o p t i o n o f a d i f f e r e n t i n c e n t i v e p l a n , as c a u s e s o f t h e r e d u c t i o n i n A l P b o n u s e s . P l a i n t i f f s a l s o o f f e r t h e i r p r i o r a w a r d s u n d e r t h e A l P as e v i d e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e f r o m t h e h i s t o r i c a l l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a n t a w a r d s . However, none o f these arguments are relevant w h e n viewed i n light o f this COUlt'S holding t h a t the definition o f Material Alteration i n Compensation set fOlth in t h e A g r e e m e n t "requires purely m o n e t m y , ' d o l l a r s and c e n t s ' a n a l y s i s o f w h e t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n r e m a i n e d c o m p a r a b l e , r a t h e r t h a n analysis o f w h e t h e r t h e t h r e e p a y c o m p o n e n t s remained comparable. . . . T h e critical q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r . . . P l a i n t i f f s ' t o t a l c o m p e n s a t i o n , as m e a s u r e d i n m o n e t m y t e r m s , a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e d . (Opinion at 23.) A s t h i s COUlt previously noted, " i f Daul h a d n o t resigned, h i s total direct c o m p e n s a t i o n for t h e o n e - y e a r p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g t h e p u r c h a s e o f S c o t t i s h P o w e r w o u l d h a v e b e e n $ 2 , 4 7 1 , 2 3 1 , w h i c h i s $ 6 2 5 , 9 8 2 m o r e t h a n i t w a s d u r i n g t h e o n e - y e a r p e r i o d p r i o r t o the p u r c h a s e . Similarly, had Grube n o t resigned, his total compensation would have been $1,845,377, w h i c h is

P A G E 17 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

$610,637 more t h a n i t was the previous year." (Opinion at 23-24 (citations omitted).) A material c h a n g e from the h i s t o r i c a l l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a n t a w a r d s o r t h e r e a s o n s for s u c h a c h a n g e i s n o t r e l e v a n t u n d e r t h i s definition. T h i s c o u l i r e i t e r a t e s i t s finding that there w a s no M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n d u e to t h e r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f p a y components, i n c l u d i n g t h e A l P . W h a t P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a r to be doing h e r e is s e e k i n g a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e Opinion. A p a r t y m a y s e e k reconsideration o f a ruling o n a s u m m m y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n u n d e r either FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) o r FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) m u s t b e filed within 10 days after e n t l y o f the j u d g m e n t while motions u n d e r FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) m u s t be filed within a reasonable time, not to exceed one yem· after entry o f j u d g m e n t for motions brought u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n s ( l ) t h r o u g h ( 3 ) o f R u l e 60(b). The district cOUli generally applies the same analysis u n d e r b o t h rules. "Reconsideration i s appropriate i f the district court (1) is presented w i t h newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear e n o r o r the initial decision w a s manifestly unjust, o r (3) i f there is a n intervening change in controlling l a w . " School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County v. ACand8, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)(citingAll Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Center, 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 (D. H a w a i i 1987), r e v ' d on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1 9 8 8 » . T o be successful, a motion for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n m u s t m e e t t w o r e q u i r e m e n t s . " F i r s t , i t m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e s o m e r e a s o n w h y t h e c o u l i should reconsider its p r i o r decision. Second, it m u s t set forth facts o r l a w o f a strongly convincing nature to induce the cOUli to reverse its prior decision." A l l Hawaii Tours, 116 F.R.D. a t 649. Rule 60(b)( 1) specifically allows a court to con·ect a final j u d g m e n t where the j u d g m e n t w a s b a s e d o n " m i s t a k e , i n a d v e l i e n c e , s u r p r i s e o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t . " H o w e v e r , t h e p m i i e s are l i m i t e d

P A G E 18 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

to the arguments previously made and addressed by the court. " A motion for reconsideration is an improper vehicle to tender new legal theories n o t raised in opposition to summary j u d g m e n t . " A l l Hawaii Tours, 116 F.R.D. at 650. The decision to correct a j u d g m e n t for mistake o r inadvertence, whether made by a p a t t y o r the comt, rests i n the discretion o f the trial court. Fidelity Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004). T h e c a t c h a l l p r o v i s i o n o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) i s f o u n d i n s u b s e c t i o n s i x w h i c h a l l o w s a c o u r t to c o r r e c t a j u d g m e n t " f o r a n y o t h e r r e a s o n t h a t j u s t i f i e s r e l i e f . " To q u a l i f y f o r r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s provision, a p a r t y m u s t " e s t a b l i s h the existence o f extraordinaty circumstances w h i c h prevented o r rendered h i m unable to prosecute a n appeal." lvfartella v. lvfarine Cooks & Stewards Union, Seafarers Int'!. o fNorth America, 448 F.2d 7 2 9 , 7 3 0 (9th Cir. 1971). P l a i n t i f f s h a v e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a n y n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e o r i d e n t i f y any i n t e r v e n i n g change in case law. Viltually all o f the evidence offered by Plaintiffs in opposition to the m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t w a s o f f e r e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r i o r s u m m a t y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and, i f not, was clearly available a t t h a t time. Plaintiffs do not cite to any case law, o r mention any intervening change in case law, in their opposition brief. Finally, Plaintiffs do n o t at'gue that this c o m t c o m m i t t e d c l e a r e r r o r , t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s i n t h e O p i n i o n w e r e m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t or t h e r e s u l t o f m i s t a k e , inadvertence, s u r p r i s e o r e x c u s a b l e neglect, o r t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances prevent t h e m from prosecuting a n appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that t h e y are entitled to a'reconsideration o f the Opinion. In any event, Plaintiffs' current arguments are primarily premised o n their assumption that t h e 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7 A l P w a s replaced w i t h a different incentive p l a n a n d t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n o f I b e r d r o l a U S A p e r s o n n e l w o u l d dilute t h e A l P b o n u s p o o l . T h e o n l y e v i d e n c e o n t h i s i s s u e i s f o u n d i n

P A G E 19 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

Hudgens's Supplemental Declaration. Hudgens states t h a t " P P M decided to maintain the F Y 200607 A I P w i t h o u t c h a n g e s f o r t w o y e a r s a f t e r t h e l b e r d r o l a t r a n s a c t i o n i n A p r i l 2 0 0 7 . . . . T h u s , t1u'ough April 1, 2009, the A l P remained i n place and n o n e w groups o r lberdrola U S A employees were a d d e d to it." (Hudgens Supp. Dec!.
~

5.) P l a i n t i f f s ' a s s u m p t i o n s a r e r e f u t e d b y t h i s e v i d e n c e

a n d a n y arguments b a s e d o n these assumptions are n o t sUPPolied. Additionally, P l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t following t h e C h a n g e i n Control, P P M e l i m i n a t e d t h e b u i l d - t o - s e l l b u s i n e s s oppOlwnity, w h i c h w a s o n e o f t h e f a s t e s t g r o w i n g b u s i n e s s s e g m e n t s i n t h e m a r k e t f o r w i n d energy a n d r e s u l t e d i n a significant increase i n t h e EBIT, a n d t h e A l P bonus p o o l , f o r t h e y e a r i n w h i c h t h e t r a n s a c t i o n w a s c o m p l e t e d . T h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t i n t h e five y e a r s P l a i n t i f f s w e r e e m p l o y e d b y P P M , P P M p a r t i c i p a t e d i n o n l y o n e b u i l d - t o - s e l l p r o j e c t a n d t h a t , as a result o f t h a t project, D a u l ' s A l P bonus j u m p e d from $150,000 for fiscal year 2004-2005 to $900,000 f o r f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 6 w h i l e G m b e ' s A l P b o n u s d e c r e a s e d f r o m $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 for fiscal y e a r 2 0 0 4 2005 to $325,000 for fiscal year 2005-2006. The fact t h a t P P M d e c i d e d n o t to p u r s u e any build-tosell o p p o l i u n i t i e s i n the t w o years following the Change i n Control is n o t a material c h a n g e from P P M ' s h i s t o r i c a l p a t i i c i p a t i o n i n b u i l d - t o - s e l l projects. Similarly, Plaintiffs argue t h a t following the Change i n Control, P P M shifted its focus to i n s t a l l i n g as m a n y m e g a w a t t s as p o s s i b l e r a t h e r t h a n g e n e r a t i n g t h e m o s t E B l T o r p r o f i t p e r megawatt, which resulted i n a decrease i n the A l P bonus pool a n d a c011'esponding decrease i n t h e h i s t o r i c a l levels o f p a t i i c i p a n t a w a r d s u n d e r t h e A l P . T h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a t D a u l r e c e i v e d a $ 1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 A l P b o n u s a w a r d for fiscal y e a r 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7 , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s a $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n c r e a s e f r o m the prior fiscal year. Grube received a $625,000 A l P b o n u s award for fiscal year 2006-2007, w h i c h a l s o r e p r e s e n t s a $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n c r e a s e f r o m t h e p r i o r f i s c a l year. P l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t b a s e d o n t h e

P A G E 2 0 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

historical levels o f AlP awards, Daul should have received an A l P bonus award o f $2,209,020 i n fiscal y e a r 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 , r e p r e s e n t i n g a n a n n u a l i n c r e a s e o f $ 1 , 0 0 9 , 0 2 0 , a n d G r u b e s h o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d a n A l P b o n u s a w a r d o f $ 1 , 4 8 6 , 8 1 0 i n fiscal y e a r 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 , r e p r e s e n t i n g a n a n n u a l increase o f $ 8 6 1 , 8 1 0 . However, the average annual increase in A l P for Plaintiffs in the prior five y e a r s ( e x c l u d i n g t h e l a r g e i n c r e a s e for D a u l a n d the s l i g h t d e c r e a s e for G r u b e i n f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 i n w h i c h t h e o n e b u i l d - t o - s e l l t r a n s a c t i o n w a s c o m p l e t e d ) w a s $ 1 2 3 , 3 3 5 for D a u l a n d $ 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 f o r Grube. B a s e d o n t h e s e h i s t o r i c a l a v e r a g e s , t h e A l P b o n u s e s e s t i m a t e d b y P P M for P l a i n t i f f s f o r f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 h a d t h e y n o t r e s i g n e d , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t e d a n a n n u a l i n c r e a s e o f $ 3 5 , 4 7 0 for D a u l a n d $ 4 0 , 5 7 0 for G r u b e , m o r e c l o s e l y f o l l o w the h i s t o r i c a l l e v e l s t h a n the i n c r e a s e s p r o p o s e d b y t h e Plaintiffs. T h i s c o u r t p r e v i o u s l y f o u n d t h a t there w a s no M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n d u e to t h e r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f p a y c o m p o n e n t s a n d P l a i n t i f f s h a v e n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e y are e n t i t l e d to a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s ruling. A c c o r d i n g l y , D e f e n d a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i a l s u m m m y j u d g m e n t o n t h e A l P - b a s e d c l a i m s b a s e d o n the O p i n i o n . E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e p r i o r m l i n g s d o n o t a p p l y to t h e A l P - b a s e d claims, P l a i n t i f f s ' a r g u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a M a t e r i a l A l t e r a t i o n i n C o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r t h e A I P o c c u r r e d a f t e r the C h a n g e i n C o n t r o l b a s e d o n c h a n g e s t o the A l P itself, t h e n u m b e r o f A l P p a r t i c i p a n t s , o r P P M b u s i n e s s s t r a t e g i e s a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d b y the record. T h e court finds that Plaintiffs did n o t comply w i t h the strict requirements ofR-ule 56(f) or e s t a b l i s h t h a t the a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e l y t h e y s e e k w o u l d c o m p e l t h e d e n i a l o f D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n f o r s u m m m y j u d g m e n t . P l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n f o r a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e l y is denied.

Conclusion
D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n for p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n t h e A I P - b a s e d c l a i m s i s G R A N T E D .

P A G E 21 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

{SIB}

Plaintiffs' motion for additional discovely is DENIED. DATED this 15th day o f April, 2010.

Unit

HNV.ACOSTA States Magistrate Judge

PAGE 22 - OPINION AND ORDER

{SIB}